From the time I heard about Southside with You—the story of the first “date” between our beloved president and the lovely first lady Michelle Obama—I knew I wanted to see it.

I’d read Dreams from My Father and its description of the first couple’s first date. But I knew I’d love seeing it on screen.

I wasn’t disappointed. And I think you can like it without admiring the Obamas and their family life as much as I do.

First, the movie is refreshing. For those of us who remember real love stories—when people had a relationship and got to know each other instead of just jumping into bed—this movie is a delightful throwback to that time.

I Didn’t Like….

I was initially annoyed that the actor portraying Barack Obama is so much darker than the president. When black people are portrayed on screen, skin tone isn’t always considered. For example, Sidney Poitier was cast as Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall—need I say more? Not all black people look alike, but casting directors don’t seem to notice that.

But Parker Sawyers’s portrayal almost immediately allayed my concerns. His manner, speech, even facial expressions were so convincing that by the end of the movie he seemed to be Barack Obama. He absolutely nailed it. He exuded the president’s sweetness, charm, intelligence, confidence, earnestness—and just a bit of helplessness, since he wasn’t completely sure if he was reeling Michelle in or not.

I didn’t like how Barack (Sawyers) kept licking his lips and looking over Michelle’s (Tika Sumpter’s) body. It was unnecessary, I thought.

I also thought the scene where Michelle is dancing with a little girl was unrealistic. Most women out with a man for the first time don’t want to get hot and sweaty and wrinkled. Of course, this is a movie, so Michelle still looked neat afterwards—but I’m not sure how that would have worked in real life.

I Loved….

I loved this first date, I mean, non-date. Michelle keeps insisting it’s not a date, because she thinks it’s inappropriate to date a junior associate at the law firm where they both work. She’s also the only black woman at the firm, so she wants to hold herself to an impeccable standard.

Michelle’s resistance aside, Barack planned a wonderful day, though he wasn’t exactly forthcoming about it. He had invited her to attend a meeting of community organizers—but, oh, let’s go to the museum first, and then the park—and after the meeting let’s walk by the lake, see a movie, and get something to eat, not to mention ice cream for dessert.

It’s hinted at, even from the beginning when Michelle is home preparing, that she’s attracted to the young associate, but she’s not letting on. She wants to keep it professional—and she definitely strives to. But at the end it’s clear that Barack has made as much of an impression on her as she has on him.

This is a great movie for romantics or those who admire the Obamas and have wondered what their budding romance may have looked like. I love slow, thoughtful movies, but even for me this film is a little slow. In its simplicity and honesty, though, I’d say the movie depicts the beginnings of the Obama love story just right. You also see a few hints of the great man and leader Barack Obama will be.

US President Barack Obama (R) and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore hold a joint news conference after their meeting at the White House in Washington,DC on August 2, 2016. / AFP / YURI GRIPAS (Photo credit should read YURI GRIPAS/AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON ― President Barack Obama on Tuesday said Donald Trump was “unfit to serve” as president of the country, asking top Republicans in Congress why they’re still endorsing the real estate mogul even as they need to condemn his comments on a near-daily basis.

Trump’s attacks on the family of a soldier killed in action in Iraq have unleashed the latest wave of rebukes from Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)

Asked about the Republican nominee during a press conference, the president said he cannot run the country and it’s time for top GOP leaders to rethink their endorsements.

“I recognize that they all profoundly disagree with myself or Hillary Clinton on tax policy or on certain elements of foreign policy,” Obama said of Republicans. “But you know, there have been Republican presidents with whom I disagreed with but I didn’t have a doubt that they could function as president.”

Obama said it’s time for these leaders to rethink their endorsements.

“The question I think that they have to ask themselves: If you are repeatedly having to say in very strong terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him?” Obama said, naming Ryan and McConnell. “What does this say about your party that this is your standard-bearer?”

Trump’s gaffes aren’t “episodic,” Obama said.

“This is daily and weekly where they are distancing themselves from statements he’s making,” he said. “There has to be a point at which you say this is not somebody I can support for president of the United States.”

Both Ryan and McConnell have repeatedly rebuked Trump for his proposed ban on Muslims (later changed to Muslims coming to the U.S. from “terrorist countries”), and his attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel over his Mexican heritage.

The two Republicans on Sunday had to distance themselves from Trump again ― this time over comments the candidate made about Khizr and Ghazala Khan, whose son was killed while serving in Iraq in 2004 when he moved towards a vehicle loaded with explosives to protect fellow soldiers.

Captivating the country during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Khan took on Trump directly, asking him if he’d ever read the Constitution and telling him to visit Arlington Cemetery to see the names of those who have sacrificed for the U.S.

“You have sacrificed nothing,” Khan said. In interviews over the weekend, Khizr didn’t let up, pleading with Ryan and McConnell to “repudiate” Trump.

The criticism didn’t sit well with the former business mogul, who responded to the speech by going after Ghazala Khan, asking why she remained silent by her husband’s side. Trump also said he’d made “a lot of sacrifices,” but then failed to come up with a single example.

Despite the Republican leaders expressing support for the Khans, they did not revoke their endorsements of Trump. The fact that they haven’t done so, Obama said on Tuesday, makes their denunciations “ring hollow.”

While he doesn’t doubt their sincerity, Obama said, there comes a point where you have to say “somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn’t have the judgement, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world because a lot of people depend on the White House getting stuff right.”

The referendum outcome prompted the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister David Cameron to resign early Friday. He led the campaign to remain in the EU, which was defeated Thursday by 52 percent to 48 percent.

“The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision,” Obama said in a statement. “The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is enduring, and the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO remains a vital cornerstone of U.S. foreign, security, and economic policy. So too is our relationship with the European Union, which has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond.”

Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, also said in a statement that she respected the results of the referendum and wanted to limit the economic uncertainty that the vote had created.

“We respect the choice the people of the United Kingdom have made,” the former Secretary of State said in the statement. “Our first task has to be to make sure that the economic uncertainty created by these events does not hurt working families here in America.”

Clinton added the global uncertainty made it clearer that the United States needed someone with strong experience as president. She has attacked Donald Trump, her Republican rival, as lacking the the temperament and judgement to lead — something the businessman himself put on full display Friday, when he congratulated the Scottish people for “taking their country back” from the EU. Most voters in Scotland backed the “remain” campaign. Trump said earlier this week he supported Britain leaving the EU — even though he didn’t know that much about the Brexit debate.

President Barack Obama has endorsed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, signaling he will fight to ensure that she succeeds him in the White House.

Obama made his endorsement via a video released Thursday:

“I want to congratulate Hillary Clinton on making history as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the president of the United States,” Obama said in the video.

“I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office,” he said, adding, “I want those of you who’ve been with me from the beginning of this incredible journey to be the first to know that I’m with her.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) met with Obama at the White House earlier in the day, and said afterward during a press conference that he would work to ensure presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump does not make it to the White House. Sanders did not endorse Clinton or say that he would withdraw from the race.

Obama mentioned Sanders in his endorsement of Clinton, thanking the senator for “shining a spotlight on issues like economic inequality and the outsized influence of money in our politics, and bringing young people into the process.”

Obama emphasized that Clinton and Sanders have a shared vision of “the values that make America great.”

“Those are the values that are going to be tested in this election,” he said.

President Barack Obama slammed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday for the presidential hopeful’s statements that he would empower law enforcement to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods“ in the wake of the deadly terror attacks in Brussels.

“I just left a country that engages in that kind of neighborhood surveillance, which, by the way, the father of Sen. Cruz escaped for America, the land of the free,” Obama said during a press conference in Argentina, referring to his historic trip to Cuba earlier this week.

He said the proposal “makes absolutely no sense” and goes against basic American values.

The Republican presidential candidate, a Cuban-American, has been deeply critical of Obama’s strategy to destroy the

“It is way past time we have a president who will acknowledge this evil and will call it by its name and use the full force and fury to defeat ISIS,” Cruz said in a press conference on Tuesday. “Until they are defeated, these attacks will continue. Their target is each and every one of us.”

“We need a president who sets aside political correctness,” Cruz insisted. “We don’t need another lecture about Islamophobia.”

Cruz’s comments drew fire from Muslim advocacy groups, Democrats, the police commissioner of New York City and even one of his rivals for the GOP nomination, Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Obama also criticized proposals to bomb ISIS positions in Syria and Iraq indiscriminately. Cruz has called for “carpet bombing” terrorists, a strategy that would endanger civilians.

“We don’t go and blow something up just so we can say that we blew something up. That’s not a military strategy,” Obama said.

Cruz’s comments on Muslim surveillance come amid a wave of anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States, which has only grown with the candidacy of Donald Trump after last year’s terror attacks in Paris and mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Reports about American Muslims facing violence, harassment and intimidation, especially, are on the uptick.

Republican voters are largely sympathetic to the Islamophobic opinions dominating their party’s national dialogue.

While Republicans in a January Pew survey blamed religious violence mostly on those who use religion as a justification, most also support Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. In state primary exit polls to date, between 63 percent and 78 percent of GOP voters agreed with such a ban.

Nearly two-thirds of Republican voters say the next president should “speak bluntly about Islamic extremists even if the statements are critical of Islam as a whole.”

This post has been updated with information about Americans’ views on anti-Muslim sentiment.

Settling for a centrist candidate with nearly two decades of judicial experience, President Barack Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick Garland, a federal appeals judge in Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

“I said I would take this process seriously, and I did,” Obama said while announcing his choice from the Rose Garden at the White House, adding: “The one name that has come up repeatedly — from Republicans and Democrats alike — is Merrick Garland.”

If confirmed, Garland, 63, wouldn’t bring diversity to the court as much a lengthy résumé in public service, including stints in the Department of Justice and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has served since 1997 and is now the chief judge.

An eventual appointment for Garland is also less likely to mark a liberal shift in the Supreme Court. If anything, his contributions — given his age and his moderate record so far — are likely to be more pragmatic than path-marking for some of the country’s most hotly contested legal issues, such as voting rights, gun control and the scope of presidential powers.

For those very reasons, Garland is the least controversial — and likely the most confirmable — of all the candidates who were reportedly considered for the vacancy. It is possible Obama chose him for the post to defuse the confirmation fight that Senate Republicans have promised since the moment Scalia died.

Obama seriously considered Garland in 2010 for the opening created by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. He was ultimately passed over for Elena Kagan, then the president’s top lawyer before the Supreme Court.

Garland has some pluses that could serve him well in a polarized environment, including knowing Chief Justice John Roberts — the two clerked for famed New York judge Henry Friendly and participated in cases together on the D.C. Circuit, when Roberts served there between 2003 and 2005.

An honors graduate of Harvard Law School, Garland is also chief judge of a federal court that’s widely regarded as second only to the Supreme Court: The D.C. Circuit is not only a pipeline of sorts for future justices — Scalia and Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also sat there — but it also hears major cases on federal regulatory action on net neutrality, health care and the environment.

“Judge Garland’s record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge,” wrote SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein in 2010, when the White House first vetted him for a seat on the high court. “He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements.”

Under the Constitution, it is now the Senate’s role to consider Obama’s nomination, providing the necessary “advice and consent” to decide whether Garland should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Since Scalia’s death, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have repeatedly vowed to not even consider anyone the president nominates, arguing that whoever wins the general election in November should name the next justice.

This has enraged Democrats and sparked weeks of political mudslinging, charges of opportunism and accusations that Senate Republicans are refusing to do their jobs.

At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) candidly recognized that his party’s obstructionism over the nomination was more about politics than anything else.

In response, the White House and progressive groups are ready for what looks to be a monumental fight to get the nominee confirmed — setting their sights on Republican incumbents, including Grassley, whose staunch opposition to holding confirmation hearings could backfire at the polls.

Republicans are planning a ground game, too, forming their own “SCOTUS task force” to combat whatever the White House and its allies may have up their sleeves.

“This will be the most comprehensive judicial response effort in our party’s history,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus promised in a statement.

Speaking about his legal background at a conference at the Georgetown University Law Center in 2013, Garland seemed to presage the confirmation fight that awaits him.

“They tell you in Washington, that if you want a friend get a dog. Harry Truman said that,” Garland said. “That is not true. Get a family. That is a hard place to be. No matter how much honor you have, people will attack you one way or the other. And the principle solace that you get is from your family because they’re behind you no matter what happens.”

Over the past year and a half, I’ve witnessed many writers, critics and ideologues state with disdain that Black-ish “isn’t the Cosby show” – and they’re all right.

Black-ish is not The Cosby Show – it’s the show that the black community needs right now.

And last night’s episode on police brutality, is undeniable proof.

Black-ish delivered an absolutely stunning, emotional, hilarious and insightful episode on state-sponsored violence and how we, black families, attempt to cope and deal with the issues that arise from it.

NEW YORK, NY – APRIL 21: Honoree Bryan Stevenson attends the 2015 Time 100 Gala at Frederick P. Rose Jazz Hall at Lincoln Center on April 21, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Mark Sagliocco/Getty Images)

Bryan Stevenson’s inspiring and best-selling book Just Mercy shares some of the fruits of his lifelong fight to push our nation closer to true justice. In January our nation took two more steps forward in the ongoing struggle to treat children like children and ensure a fairer justice system for all, especially for our poor and those of color.

In 2012 Bryan Stevenson won the landmark United States Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama banning mandatory sentences of life in prison without parole for children 17-years-old and younger. Until then the United States was the only country in the world that routinely condemned children convicted of crimes as young as 13 and 14 to die in prison. After that ruling most states that had sentenced youths to mandatory life sentences gave them the opportunity to argue for reduced sentences or apply for parole. Seven did not: Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana and Pennsylvania. Three of these, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Michigan, accounted for more than 1,100 of the 1,200-1,500 inmates still imprisoned for crimes committed as children. A January 25 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Montgomery v. Louisiana made clear that the Miller decision must be applied retroactively in every state. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the decision, “The opportunity for release will be afforded to those who demonstrate the truth of Miller’s central intuition — that children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change.”

One of Bryan Stevenson’s searing stories in Just Mercy is about a child sentenced to life in prison without parole. Ian Manuel pled guilty to armed robbery and attempted murder for a crime he committed with two older boys when he was thirteen. He was incarcerated at Apalachee Correctional Institution in Florida, an adult prison, and sent to solitary confinement: “Solitary confinement at Apalachee means living in a concrete box the size of a walk-in closet . . . If you shout or scream, your time in solitary is extended; if you hurt yourself by refusing to eat or mutilating your body, your time in solitary is extended . . . In solitary Ian became a self-described ‘cutter’; he would take anything sharp on his food tray to cut his wrists and arms just to watch himself bleed. His mental health unraveled, and he attempted suicide several times. Each time he hurt himself or acted out, his time in isolation was extended. Ian spent 18 years in uninterrupted solitary confinement”—despite calls from even his victim about his inhumane confinement.

Tragically Ian Manuel’s story is not unique. The same day the U.S. Supreme Court decided Montgomery v. Louisiana, President Obama announced a ban on solitary confinement in the federal prison system for all children and youths, and for adults incarcerated for “low-level infractions” in an executive action that should serve as a model for all states and local jurisdictions. The President wrote solitary confinement “has been linked to depression, alienation, withdrawal, a reduced ability to interact with others and the potential for violent behavior. Some studies indicate that it can worsen existing mental illnesses and even trigger new ones. Prisoners in solitary are more likely to commit suicide, especially juveniles and people with mental illnesses. The United States is a nation of second chances, but the experience of solitary confinement too often undercuts that second chance. . . . In America, we believe in redemption. We believe, in the words of Pope Francis, that ‘every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes.’ We believe that when people make mistakes, they deserve the opportunity to remake their lives. And if we can give them the hope of a better future, and a way to get back on their feet, then we will leave our children with a country that is safer, stronger and worthy of our highest ideals.”

Reaching that vision of America—the one that believes in redemption and hope and equal justice for all—is the goal Bryan Stevenson has been striving for throughout his life. His critical victories over 30 years exonerating innocent death row prisoners and helping ensure fairer treatment for others, along with his earlier success before the U.S. Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons that banned the execution of children have convinced him you cannot make a difference and create justice until you get close to the people who are struggling. He has said, “All of my clients are broken. They’ve been broken by poverty. They’ve been broken by racism. They’ve been broken by inequality. They’ve been broken by injustice. . . . When you’re broken you need grace. When you’re broken you need love. When you’re broken you need fellowship. When you’re broken you need understanding. When you’re broken you need vision.” Bryan Stevenson is unwavering in that vision and in lifting his voice of great moral clarity at the forefront of the struggle. Every new hard-earned and overdue victory should remind us all that we must keep moving towards greater justice for all.

WASHINGTON — In the first working week of his last calendar year in office, President Barack Obama defied Congress and pursued long-stalled gun control methods through executive action.

Obama gave a speech on his proposals at the White House on Tuesday, where he was joined by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was shot in the head along with 18 others at a supermarket in Tucson five years ago this week. The president was introduced by Mark Barden, the father of one of the 20 children killed in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Tearing up during his remarks, Obama emphasized a point he’s made after the many mass shootings that have occurred during his presidency, saying that America is “the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency.”

“Somehow, we become numb to it and we start thinking, ‘This is normal,'” Obama said.

“Instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates,” he added.

The series of proposals, which the administration first unveiled on Monday, are designed to shore up holes in the federal background check system for gun purchases, devote millions of additional dollars to mental health services, and kick-start so-called smart gun technology.

Republicans denounced the proposals before they debuted as inherently unconstitutional, foreshadowing what will likely be a contentious legal battle.

“This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)

But Obama has been increasingly unbowed as his time in the White House comes to a close. Aides said few issues have frustrated him more than the inability to forge a legislative consensus around gun control measures, which failed to pass the Senate in the months following the 2012 Newtown shooting, amid fierce opposition from the National Rifle Association.

“The gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. We do not need to accept this carnage as the price of freedom,” the president said.

“Every time I think about those kids, it makes me mad,” he added, in reference to the elementary schoolers who died in Newtown. “And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.”

The president’s executive actions, aides said, were birthed from this sense of frustration.

“These are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch, but they’re also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support me doing,” Obama told reporters on Monday.

Though gun control advocates cheered the executive actions, it wasn’t clear how far their impact would reach. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she did not have an estimate on how many additional gun dealers would have to obtain licenses to sell firearms or how many more background checks would be conducted. She noted that there was no legal basis for the administration to declare that firearms sellers that conduct more than a certain number of sales should qualify as businesses subject to the background check system.

Rather, the administration would seek to enhance the process by issuing tighter guidance, rather than tacking on new regulations. The approach allows the administration, as Lynch said, to implement rules more quickly, but also raises questions about why the president waited two-plus years after Newtown to begin the process.

Chief among the new guidance is for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to finalize two rules. One would require background checks for people trying to purchase dangerous firearms through a trust, corporation or other legal entity. The other would declare that those who ship firearms notify law enforcement if the weapons are lost or stolen in transit.

“During the first part of 2016, ATF is going to engage in the business of educational initiatives targeting not just gun shows, but flea markets and other places where guns tend to be sold, as well as reaching out to online dealers as well,” said Lynch. “They will continue to look at those dealers who sell to prohibited people, which is already ongoing, and we will be looking to see whether or not people once on notice comply with this regulation or whether there are those who seek to still sort of hide in the shadows or hide behind the exceptions and continue to sell firearms without doing what’s required. Those cases will be referred to the relevant U.S. attorney’s office.”

In addition to adding new layers onto the current background check system, the administration is pushing to streamline the current one. The president is proposing that the FBI hire 230 additional examiners to help process background checks on a 24/7 basis. The current system is overloaded and hampered by outdated technology, aides said, with 63,000 background check requests per day. Currently, 91 percent of background checks are done through the federal system within the three days the law allows.

Other components of the president’s new proposals include a directive to the departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to do research into gun safety technology, and a proposal for $500 million in additional funding for increased access to mental health care.

The push for smart gun technology appears to be a token gesture, as most experts say demand, not supply, has held back the development of advanced safety features. The mental health funding does not fall under the rubric of an executive action, as it would require an appropriation and, therefore, the support of Congress. And that, in turn, spotlights the limits of the president’s refined approach.

Put simply, Congress still has a say, either in rejecting requests for funding, or in proactively taking funds away from federal agencies if the executive actions go forward.

“I have formally notified Attorney General Lynch that I will aggressively protect our Second Amendment rights using Congress’ power of the purse,” said Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas). “I notified the attorney general that if the Department of Justice attempted to create new restrictions on our constitutional rights that I would use every tool at my disposal to immediately restrict their access to federal funding.”

As for the impending legal theatrics, the administration expressed confidence — naturally — that Obama was on solid ground.

“We’ve looked at this from a number of angles and proposed this guidance in a way that we think is consistent with existing law … as well as consistent with the Second Amendment and wanted to be as careful as we could about that,” said Lynch.